Monday, June 12, 2017

Online Training: The good, the bad, and the ugly

"Distance education can be as effective as any other category of instruction," (Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2015, p. 9). This is a very bold statement that is backed up by research. Looking at this statement, the phrase 'can be' jumps out at me. Just as traditional face-to-face learning, online learning is only as effective as the presenter.

     I have experienced distance learning on many different topics. This experience ranges from how to use a new state department tool, all the way up to using virtual machines to manage a district network. As with any course you take, some online training sessions are much more effective than others. It states in the textbook "Interaction in distance education is important," (Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2015, p. 72). This is very evident in most of the sessions of which I have participated. I find it much more effective if I can ask questions or be trained on specific items.

    First I would like to look at "the ugly" online training. Since moving up to district technology coordinator I end up in more ugly trainings than good ones. I consider an ugly training to be one that may have good information, I just can't follow or stand to watch. This can be due to a bad presenter, poor sound, or poor video. I have attended several of these live and have had to watch prerecorded sessions and follow up with questions. Take a look at the following quick video to see what I consider an ugly training.
   



     I consider this to be an ugly video because there is no voice-over or captions and the music is annoying to me when I am trying to solve a technical problem. This is a short video, and if you are an expert at group policy, then surely you should know how to add captions to your screen capture. Although this is not online training by definition. It is a video linked from an online training I was participating in. 

   Next I would like to talk about "the bad" online training. We all probably have a long list of trainings we have sat through we would consider bad. Each one of these would have different criteria of what we consider bad. On page 72 in their book, Teaching and Learning at a Distance, Simonson, Smaldino, and Zvacek list 22 best practices in distance education. I personally feel that it only takes missing one or two of these to be considered bad.


   
     In my opinion, some of the worst trainings I have had to sit through are part of the MyActiveHealth Heatbeats with PEEHIP. You may disagree with me, but sitting through some of those videos and quizzes makes me want to get healthier to just not have to watch anymore. I get very little out of them because they are such a time drain. You get no interaction other than quiz grades, and if you have any questions you have to call in. That defeats the purpose since calling in can replace the heartbeats anyway. These would be much better if they offered a chat session and a little more user freedom. 

     That brings me to "the good" online training. I have had several of these through the years. I would consider my experiences with the University of Montevallo to be good sessions. For me they meet all of the 22 Best Practices. I have also had good experiences with some vendor training. I have had several online trainings on software that went above and beyond. They were interactive and taught by experts. For me quick feedback is a must. If I have trouble with something, I do not like sitting a waiting for ever to get help. I like to figure things out for myself, so when I do ask for help I have usually wasted all my patience trying to figure it out myself. 


     Herbert Rau stated in his 2014 paper Learning Styles and Online Discussion Posts that "it is apparent that online instruction presents different challenges for effective teaching and learning as compared with face-to-face instruction, and it is important that the instructor recognizes these challenges to be effective," (Rau, 2014). This is the major factor that presenters need to understand. An online audience that may or may not be watching a session live, will have different needs and understanding than in person. You cannot use facial expressions and context clues to guide your instruction. 


Rau, H. (2014) Learning Styles and Online Discussion Posts. Sage Open, 14,1. 
     Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244014527988.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015) Teaching and Learning at a 
     Distance (6th ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

[Tricks that Make you Smart]. (2015, March 26). Retrieved June 12, 2017, 
     from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UZXYMVCkMw&feature=youtu.be
   

3 comments:

  1. I commented on your Facebook link about what you reference as “the ugly” in terms of training. I immediately thought of both the Universal Precautions video and the terrible quote in the presentation: “If it is wet and it is not yours, don’t touch it.” I also thought about the terrible ethic training video we had to watch! Additionally, I am pretty sure that earning the “heart beats” is why I now take medicine for high blood pressure-- this was not a problem for me before the “heartbeats” arrived on the scene. Simonson, Smaldino and Zvacek (2015) clarify a misconception regarding distance education that it is not taught by full-time faculty, but rather my adjunct instructors, another misconception they refute is “the importance of the instructional approach to the long-term strategy of the institution” (p. 4). I think that both of these scenarios potentially play into the problems we have seen in some of our “ugly” and “bad” trainings-- the people designing the trainings do not have adequate training in instructional design, themselves. Teachers and educational professionals are very critical of the trainings they receive because they know what methods adequately reach their audience, and the expect the same for themselves.

    References
    Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As we all know, many of the trainings that we sit through as educators only exist because of some type of legal or regulatory reason. They are not designed to change behaviors or performance, but simply to inform. The only expectation is that the we complete the “training” by the deadline. One such training that comes to mind is a training the nurse at my school gives every year on blood borne pathogens. It is simply the same 5 minute powerpoint presentation that she reads, year after. I do not expect these types of training to have good instructional design. As you mentioned in your post, I agree about the different needs of online instruction vs. face-to-face instruction. There will never be a one sized fits all approach to teaching and learning. According to Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek (2015), most students first choice is not to learn at a distance because they prefer meeting with learning groups. This is interesting to me because of the continuous growth and push toward Virtual Schools and distance learning.

    Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

    ReplyDelete